Where do you live exactly? The article's math is not wrong. We will never see a fleet of hybrids to match today's car for every man woman and child in America ideal of happy motoring.
I do not think, however, it's safe to say that it would change them for the better. One might hope that social norms would change to become more accepting - that is, that all behaviors that are not illegal or unethical would also not be shameful. One might fear, however, that what would really happen is a tyranny of the majority situation regarding such behaviors, moving them from simply shameful to practically illegal. Behaviors engaged in by any minority (by which I mean mathematical minortiy, not ethnic minority) would, potentially, be threatened.
I agree that minority groups have more to fear from pervasive surveillance, but the world is too big to become homogeneous. Also, it would be impossible to implement perfect surveillance quickly. Cities like New York and London are presumably taking these ideas seriously, and to their credit, proceeding cautiously. Layers of privacy will be stripped away slowly, and someone or something still has to point the camera in whatever direction they want to monitor. It will be a while yet before there is a reveal furries button down at the panopticon.
Besides which, I personally have never had anything against furries. I'm sure that when they are not fucking in their bear suits, they're pretty much like myself in most ways. They eat and sleep, walk around talking to people, do some job or other. They might not have such a hard time in, say, a transparent San Franciscan city-state, right?
Generally, the privacy we are discussing is not that of those people in positions of power and authority. They are the very people most likely to implement and control surveillance technologies. It behooves us to learn about these tech and learn how to deploy them effectively, ad-hoc, in a more democratic fashion.
The article mentions tracking the movements of homeless people anonymously, for instance, and more broadly discusses how privacy concerns must be considered while developing these tech rather than trying to legislate solutions after the fact. It will be a long time before we are able to peer into the corporate boardrooms on the upper reaches of cable, but we should consider what information we might not know about ourselves, how it will be discovered, and how this might affect us, in terms of our liberties and the communities we live in.
I don't completely agree with you, but you are right that privacy encourages a kind of hyperindividualism. We keep harmless secrets, perhaps out of fear, which in turn prevents us from learning that others harbor the very same secrets. These are potentially opportunities to create trust.
Pervasive monitoring would "out" a lot of human behavior and necessarily change social norms. Restricted, centrally controlled monitoring could only be a tool of oppression, protecting the secrets of the powerful as it uses the secrets of the weak to divide and control society. Here's a great comment on privacy from the other day.
Giving up privacy means giving up your ability to deceive another. The problem is that secrets are not evenly distibuted - my secrets are piddly little things compared to a governor's secrets. Existing power structures are such that those who have the most reason to value their privacy will also have greater means of preserving it, and those relatively inconsequential secrets that most people harbor will be exploited to control them in various ways.
Imagine the other side of the coin, though - giving up privacy voluntarily (how, when and to whom you choose) in order to create trust. The scope of the public is widening, and it provides a unique opportunity for people to change the ways in which they think about identity and power.
I have some trepidation about the creep of casual surveillance and monitoring - it seems very narrowly conceived, merely a way to further perfect law enforcement, to try and catch EVERY crime. It will be implemented in urban areas and used to police the already oppressed. It could be used to enable the opposite, however - transparent zones, lawless places, governed directly by the collective will of communities.
we need the ones who go through the paperwork and years of waiting and struggle just as much, if not more than those who just follow where the work is.
Why? To give some bureaucrats jobs? So we can hire some more cowboy lawmen to round up the illegals on TV every couple of months? Most American citizens don't act like citizens anyway. They don't vote or have any involvement in the political life of their communities. They work and work and spend their money on beer and television.
I hope they figure out a way to turn people into fuel soon.
The article talks about using this to salvage copper wire and save space in landfill. Microwaving shredded car tires to extract diesel. How long 'til there is a reclaimation center on every corner? The streets could get a whole lot cleaner soon...
Perhaps they're trying to roll her up on some of the real thieves... I imagine that if you have the equipment to produce a replica of a drivers license, exact to the holograms but with a different description and such, you'd be doing lots of business and this lady was just some small fry. Sure she could get out on probation and run out and 'do it again' but who is enabling her?
the thing is that all the foul mouthed spammers are paying too. if your customers simply tolerate harassment and keep spending their money alongside the jerks, then there's nothing to be done. in fact, i'd bet that most mmorpgs are benefiting from having tons of assholes running around, wasting their money, trying to annoy folks who have already learned about the ignore button, and simply don't care.
outright harassment is a different matter, but every game has admins or immortals to whom you should appeal in such cases. in my experience, justice is usually pretty swift and unforgiving, if the deed is really that bad.
This is still a step in the right direction. I am looking forward to see what people will do online with this footage. I think that this is an important step for the democratic process in the United States, an inevitable consequence of information technology and the web. The next presidents will be under intense scrutiny by far more people than ever before. The internet is changing the way we choose our leadership and has the potential to make our leaders more accountable to us.
Trust me, if you bought a car and were able to make an exact replica of it for free so you could hand it to thousands of other people for free, the car industry would be all over you.
The FCC is just patting themselves on the back for letting the big four broadcasters off the hook and making a little cash as a sideline. It's a bunch of garbage. They will commit airtime to 'independent' acts, wait for some cream to rise and mine them as best they're able. People who listen to commercial music radio get exactly what they're asking for: 20 minutes of ads to 40 minutes of recycled singles from the 80s, 90s, and beyond! Radio will stay the same. The music industry has been aware for some time that the only way to get the common slob to keep buying the same rehashed "new sensation" garbage is to bribe the broadcasters to beam it directly into the cars that they're slavishly dependent upon.
Radio stations will continue to broadcast feeds from 1,500 miles away on autopilot, 24 hours a day, with some fresh indie flavor thrown in for the rebellious young americans. They will continue to bombard you with ads for auto glass repair and continue to not serve the communities they're located in. Switch it off, it's a setup.
That is an excellent point, on which the RIAA surely wants you to miss. There is a whole world of music out there, off the mainstream map, and maybe it's a little more difficult to get ahold of than the latest commodity celebrity pop crap at Wal-Mart and FYE, but it is generally fairly priced and always DRM free, at least.
Granted, there is no accounting for taste. People will like the trash they see on teevee and hear on top 40 radio as long as mainstream music has a stranglehold on their desires... but for folks whose taste is more eclectic (and whose ethic is stronger, perhaps?), there are more options than there have ever been. It's easy to avoid RIAA associated music. Stay out of that Walmart, you shouldn't be in there anyway. Go see a show in an art gallery. Get off the damn computer every once in a while.
And what does Hurtt have to say about privacy concerns? 'I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?'"
I would even go a step further and say that this is a legitimate lifestyle choice for some people. If they wish to subject themselves to constant surveilance, and they believe that some sort of monitoring makes them safer, they should feel free to live that way, so long as they don't wish to force their way on others...
Perhaps a small community of people who felt they were truly guiltless could volunteer to publicly live the disciplined lives such an endeavor would require of them, as a demonstration of what human beings could be capable of?
Perhaps this is a step towards bringing the political process closer to home. Blogging may not have a great impact on national politics but think about its potential for local politics - the offices held by the poor bastards on the bottom, who make decisions every day that directly affect the people around them. Here's a way to bring the town meeting into your living room, or coffee shop, or library. I don't expect miracles, but I'd bet you that some politicians will embrace the medium.
Stern is being replaced with David Lee Roth, at least in Boston. I bet that would drive some people to Sirius.
On second thought, though, maybe not.
Re:Leaving this to computers will lead to traffic
on
The Future of the Car
·
· Score: 1
if these systems truly make the roads safer by avoiding and mitigating hazardous actions, then it would also be useful to raise the speed limits to compensate.
Slashdot Mirror
Where do you live exactly? The article's math is not wrong. We will never see a fleet of hybrids to match today's car for every man woman and child in America ideal of happy motoring.
Punish crimes in your own manor. I am happy to live in a squalid den of sin!
Besides which, I personally have never had anything against furries. I'm sure that when they are not fucking in their bear suits, they're pretty much like myself in most ways. They eat and sleep, walk around talking to people, do some job or other. They might not have such a hard time in, say, a transparent San Franciscan city-state, right?
Generally, the privacy we are discussing is not that of those people in positions of power and authority. They are the very people most likely to implement and control surveillance technologies. It behooves us to learn about these tech and learn how to deploy them effectively, ad-hoc, in a more democratic fashion.
The article mentions tracking the movements of homeless people anonymously, for instance, and more broadly discusses how privacy concerns must be considered while developing these tech rather than trying to legislate solutions after the fact. It will be a long time before we are able to peer into the corporate boardrooms on the upper reaches of cable, but we should consider what information we might not know about ourselves, how it will be discovered, and how this might affect us, in terms of our liberties and the communities we live in.
I don't completely agree with you, but you are right that privacy encourages a kind of hyperindividualism. We keep harmless secrets, perhaps out of fear, which in turn prevents us from learning that others harbor the very same secrets. These are potentially opportunities to create trust.
I think what she's saying is that privacy CAN'T be legislated, it has to be BUILT-IN or will not work.
Everything is permissible, anything is possible.
Pervasive monitoring would "out" a lot of human behavior and necessarily change social norms. Restricted, centrally controlled monitoring could only be a tool of oppression, protecting the secrets of the powerful as it uses the secrets of the weak to divide and control society. Here's a great comment on privacy from the other day.
Soldiers are cult members (patriots), prisoners (economic) and hostages (support the troops) all rolled into one.
Giving up privacy means giving up your ability to deceive another. The problem is that secrets are not evenly distibuted - my secrets are piddly little things compared to a governor's secrets. Existing power structures are such that those who have the most reason to value their privacy will also have greater means of preserving it, and those relatively inconsequential secrets that most people harbor will be exploited to control them in various ways.
Imagine the other side of the coin, though - giving up privacy voluntarily (how, when and to whom you choose) in order to create trust. The scope of the public is widening, and it provides a unique opportunity for people to change the ways in which they think about identity and power.
I have some trepidation about the creep of casual surveillance and monitoring - it seems very narrowly conceived, merely a way to further perfect law enforcement, to try and catch EVERY crime. It will be implemented in urban areas and used to police the already oppressed. It could be used to enable the opposite, however - transparent zones, lawless places, governed directly by the collective will of communities.
I hope they figure out a way to turn people into fuel soon. The article talks about using this to salvage copper wire and save space in landfill. Microwaving shredded car tires to extract diesel. How long 'til there is a reclaimation center on every corner? The streets could get a whole lot cleaner soon...
Perhaps they're trying to roll her up on some of the real thieves... I imagine that if you have the equipment to produce a replica of a drivers license, exact to the holograms but with a different description and such, you'd be doing lots of business and this lady was just some small fry. Sure she could get out on probation and run out and 'do it again' but who is enabling her?
the thing is that all the foul mouthed spammers are paying too. if your customers simply tolerate harassment and keep spending their money alongside the jerks, then there's nothing to be done. in fact, i'd bet that most mmorpgs are benefiting from having tons of assholes running around, wasting their money, trying to annoy folks who have already learned about the ignore button, and simply don't care.
outright harassment is a different matter, but every game has admins or immortals to whom you should appeal in such cases. in my experience, justice is usually pretty swift and unforgiving, if the deed is really that bad.
This is still a step in the right direction. I am looking forward to see what people will do online with this footage. I think that this is an important step for the democratic process in the United States, an inevitable consequence of information technology and the web. The next presidents will be under intense scrutiny by far more people than ever before. The internet is changing the way we choose our leadership and has the potential to make our leaders more accountable to us.
The News War documentary is free online here. Highly recommended!
And they'd be just as wrong.
The FCC is just patting themselves on the back for letting the big four broadcasters off the hook and making a little cash as a sideline. It's a bunch of garbage. They will commit airtime to 'independent' acts, wait for some cream to rise and mine them as best they're able. People who listen to commercial music radio get exactly what they're asking for: 20 minutes of ads to 40 minutes of recycled singles from the 80s, 90s, and beyond! Radio will stay the same. The music industry has been aware for some time that the only way to get the common slob to keep buying the same rehashed "new sensation" garbage is to bribe the broadcasters to beam it directly into the cars that they're slavishly dependent upon. Radio stations will continue to broadcast feeds from 1,500 miles away on autopilot, 24 hours a day, with some fresh indie flavor thrown in for the rebellious young americans. They will continue to bombard you with ads for auto glass repair and continue to not serve the communities they're located in. Switch it off, it's a setup.
That is an excellent point, on which the RIAA surely wants you to miss. There is a whole world of music out there, off the mainstream map, and maybe it's a little more difficult to get ahold of than the latest commodity celebrity pop crap at Wal-Mart and FYE, but it is generally fairly priced and always DRM free, at least. Granted, there is no accounting for taste. People will like the trash they see on teevee and hear on top 40 radio as long as mainstream music has a stranglehold on their desires... but for folks whose taste is more eclectic (and whose ethic is stronger, perhaps?), there are more options than there have ever been. It's easy to avoid RIAA associated music. Stay out of that Walmart, you shouldn't be in there anyway. Go see a show in an art gallery. Get off the damn computer every once in a while.
I don't think that was really in the spirit of a utopian experiment.
And what does Hurtt have to say about privacy concerns? 'I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?'"
I would even go a step further and say that this is a legitimate lifestyle choice for some people. If they wish to subject themselves to constant surveilance, and they believe that some sort of monitoring makes them safer, they should feel free to live that way, so long as they don't wish to force their way on others...
Perhaps a small community of people who felt they were truly guiltless could volunteer to publicly live the disciplined lives such an endeavor would require of them, as a demonstration of what human beings could be capable of?
Perhaps this is a step towards bringing the political process closer to home. Blogging may not have a great impact on national politics but think about its potential for local politics - the offices held by the poor bastards on the bottom, who make decisions every day that directly affect the people around them. Here's a way to bring the town meeting into your living room, or coffee shop, or library. I don't expect miracles, but I'd bet you that some politicians will embrace the medium.
I meant Roth is the broadcast drivetime guy now. You know that's gonna suck.
Stern is being replaced with David Lee Roth, at least in Boston. I bet that would drive some people to Sirius.
On second thought, though, maybe not.
if these systems truly make the roads safer by avoiding and mitigating hazardous actions, then it would also be useful to raise the speed limits to compensate.
That might be sort of fun.
I grew up playing a 3d space sim/shooter called elite on my parents amiga. It was the first computer game I ever loved. It's here. What a good game.